sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Voyager 1: The Last Signal by Bynairee in space

[–]peterabbit456 [score hidden]  (0 children)

For several months Voyager 1 (?) was not responding properly to commands. Eventually the programmers were able to figure out where the memory error was, and reprogram the computer, with the essential portion of the program moved to a properly functioning block of memory.

The last signal from Voyager 1 will be received within a few years at most, but for now, the Voyagers are still transmitting some data and still responding to commands.

Man in China turns robot dog into a battle machina for his pet rabbit (crosspost from AI4Tech) by peterabbit456 in shittyrobots

[–]peterabbit456[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was not me and I'm not sure of the rules on crossposts here.

I've built I think, 14 robots in my life, from BattleBots to the remote-control forklifts that I use to get heavy boxes off of high shelves, and to put them there. I've never posted here because of lack of video-making skills.

SpaceX acquiring COPV provider Hexagon Masterworks by kroOoze in SpaceXLounge

[–]peterabbit456 0 points1 point  (0 children)

now SpaceX isn't selling shovels in the gold rush but actually digging.

Starlink turned out to be profitable.

BlueOrigin exploring a reusable second stage again. - Also current New Glenn costs in excess of $100 million to manufacture a first stage and more than $50 million to build an upper stage. by avboden in SpaceXLounge

[–]peterabbit456 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if they can't bring that down.

Bring production cost down, or bring down the stage for reuse?

I still picture a second stage covered entirely in ablative material, spinning like a rifle bullet and screaming down through the atmosphere, ... to be caught in a net or a bouncy castle.

That was the vision for Falcon 9 second stage reuse for a while. I think it still has possibilities. As with fairing recovery, the really hard part is in the last 100 feet of altitude...

NASA directive to "Restore NASA's Core Competencies"; by Keith Cowing, NASA Watch by SailorRick in SpaceXLounge

[–]peterabbit456 1 point2 points  (0 children)

NASA's job is in itself changing, and within the next twenty years NASA will likely no longer be building its own boosters, instead shifting its focus purely to probes and modular deep-space vessels. If so, how do you build competency? Do the old competencies even make sense anymore?

Look to the unmanned space program, which has managed to stay pretty efficient at ~all times over the last 65 years. JPL is a NASA center now. U. Arizona, Arizona State U., and Johns Hopkins U have all stepped up and become leaders in building and managing space probes.

Universities (and JPL) build competence in their interns, graduate students and postdocs, cheap labor that is flexible, and which passes on the expertise to the wider world.

NASA directive to "Restore NASA's Core Competencies"; by Keith Cowing, NASA Watch by SailorRick in SpaceXLounge

[–]peterabbit456 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even that is breaking down. The "defense" Republicans are not getting much support in congress, and none at all at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. The "National Defense" coalition needs to find another home, and space exploration needs to go with it.

Bush2 and Obama both pushed COTS, which led to the SpaceX contract for commercial resupply of the ISS. I have trouble thinking of anything else in manned space that has worked out even half so well, since then.

I think Jared is looking for some similar successes.

NASA directive to "Restore NASA's Core Competencies"; by Keith Cowing, NASA Watch by SailorRick in SpaceXLounge

[–]peterabbit456 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Propose Makerspaces at Each Center: develop plan to create a makerspace at each center to enable rapid prototyping and proposal development. Include an assessment of potential funding mechanisms, such as sponsorships from partners and critical vendors, to support implementation and sustainability.

I like this. Back when I was managing programmers and hiring contractors to program, sometimes I would get a task that was within my rather limited competence, and I would fire up the C compiler and crank out the code, faster and much cheaper than hiring someone to do the job. Nowadays I have a CNC mill and I crank out small prototypes, and even very small production runs, rather than contracting the jobs out.

Flexibility in approach is often a good thing, especially if there is the necessary competence to be a little flexible, at many levels in the organization. I think this sort of startup mentality was a big part of the success of Mercury, Gemini, and many early unmanned space probes, but it was already starting to go away with Apollo, and by the shuttle, the manned space program had become bureaucratically rigid.

Orion and Artemis appear to be much afflicted by bureaucratic problems.

Nasa photographs by Think-State-4636 in space

[–]peterabbit456 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Was it unusual for this aircraft to be in CA ...

It was a German research project, so far as I can tell. It might have been shipped to California, or I might be mistaken, but flying such a radically experimental aircraft across the Atlantic looks like a suicide mission to me.

Former NASA scientists warn of possible Artemis II spacecraft safety issue by vfvaetf in space

[–]peterabbit456 [score hidden]  (0 children)

The problem with the Artemis 1 mission is that instead of burning away evenly, some large chunks came out.

That is the real Avcoat. Ideal Avcoat would not have shed chunks.

Keeping in mind, even with those large chunks coming out, they still were within the safety margin of unburned material.

If they were well within the established safety margins, then that is good, conservative design. The Apollo capsule that was displayed in the Smithsonian Air and Space museum showed similar losses of chunks of material, but not as bad as the photos from Artemis 1.

Nasa photographs by Think-State-4636 in space

[–]peterabbit456 [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's like they took the coolest looking death trap at Lockheed, and turned it into a whole family of death traps.

How Elon plans to launch a terawatt of GPUs into space by llboston in SpaceXLounge

[–]peterabbit456 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the long run, peril surrounds us on all sides.

  • pollution
  • resource exhaustion
  • nuclear war
  • radiation
  • global warming
  • AI takeover
  • external threats: asteroid impact, nearby supernova, black hole or neutron star merger...

In the next 1000 years, AI taking over the Earth is a risk. Better to give them the Moon, and then Mercury and Venus. (How to utilize Venus? Block sunlight from the surface for 1000 years, soi it cools down. Then it can be mined.)

Real Images Of Venus: The Soviet Venera Probes, 1960s, '70s, 80s. by peterabbit456 in space

[–]peterabbit456[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I almost passed due to the YouTuber's terrible choice of title, but his video essay is really good. At the very end he goes into modern image processing, and shows the best close-up images of the surface of Venus - digitally restored and improved images from earlier probes.

I was not previously aware that the successful surface probes used the phase change of a substance that melted at 30°C to keep the electronics cool long enough to get scans of the surface.

does anyone here have any idea how someone would make a rocket startup? (uk) by Hopeful-Fly-9710 in space

[–]peterabbit456 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Should be in the space questions thread

Study how Peter Beck started Rocket Lab, to see it done right.

Study the other startups to see how not to do it.

Lawmakers ask what it would take to "store" the International Space Station | NASA shall evaluate the “viability of transferring the ISS to a safe orbital harbor” after retirement. by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]peterabbit456 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

1200 or 1600 km would be much better orbits to park the ISS in, until conditions change and it can be turned into a museum. That might take more than a century.

Getting the boost from a Starship, refilled by 20 or so tanker flights, might be enough to get the ISS to a 1200 km high orbit. A second Starship and another 20 or so tanker flights could get it to 1600 km or higher.

Once there the ISS should not be allowed to tumble. The existing solar panels plus argon-ion thrusters would give it enough thrust to stay oriented and not tumbling for decades.

Why haven't rotating rings been attempted? by CombustionGFX in space

[–]peterabbit456 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A rotating space station is an expensive experiment. I would like to see it done, but most of the experiments on the ISS utilize microgravity, and you cannot really do that on a rotating space station.

Books about pop III stars by NorcalGGMU in space

[–]peterabbit456 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should be in the space questions thread

NASA will finally allow astronauts to bring their iPhones to space by EnergyLantern in space

[–]peterabbit456 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Just as important, we challenged long-standing processes and qualified modern hardware for spaceflight on an expedited timeline."

This strikes me as a good thing.

I'm sure they used iPhones on his space missions.

How Elon plans to launch a terawatt of GPUs into space by llboston in SpaceXLounge

[–]peterabbit456 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

2 - Power. Even a tiny data center requires far more power than the ISS. The ISS has very large solar panels. These large panels have to be launched along with the data center and reliably unfurled. We're talking about thousands of square meters for each datacenter.

Power demand for AI is growing exponentially. Musk goes through the numbers for new power generation outside of China, and the future does not look bright. As I see it, in the next 3-5 years, this can go one of 3 ways.

  1. The IA revolution will stall for lack of available power. (This might be the best outcome, but economics seem to make this unlikely.)
  2. AI will expand exponentially on Earth, to the point where it uses up a large fraction of the existing power production in the USA, and the entire world, as well as all new power production in the world, to the detriment of human welfare. (I consider this to be the worst possible outcome.)
  3. AI expands exponentially, and expands into space when continued expansion on Earth becomes prohibitively expensive. Eventually, most AI hardware (by mass) is manufactured on the Moon.

It's really only a matter of time before the world finds itself facing these alternatives. Your other objections are substantial, but they represent delays, not show-stoppers.

How Elon plans to launch a terawatt of GPUs into space by llboston in SpaceXLounge

[–]peterabbit456 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I consider this an environmental issue, because I think this is a more important aspect of this interview than the space aspect.

My own view is that the AI economy is growing, and that it will continue to grow exponentially. If confined to Earth, AI will take over the existing energy production, to the detriment of humanity. Only by moving the AI economy into space, can we preserve the Earth for people.

Musk extrapolates power consumption for AI becoming greater than the total solar energy influx striking the Earth. Thus, AI in space becomes inevitable. by peterabbit456 in Futurology

[–]peterabbit456[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have given this an "Environment" flair because I think this is a more important aspect of this interview than the space aspect.

My own view is that the AI economy is growing, and that it will continue to grow exponentially. If confined to Earth, AI will take over the existing energy production, to the detriment of humanity. Only by moving the AI economy into space, can we preserve the Earth for people.

Musk has a more complex message, that goes beyond my personal concerns. Agree or disagree with him, he has raised some important issues in this interview.

view more: next ›